Change Your Image
Jessimaca
School
Metallica
... still waiting for the death part
Reviews
Land of the Dead (2005)
Land of the Dead makes for interesting social commentary.
I loved the idea of the post-apocalyptic view where the living dead rule the earth, or at least a little part of it. After so many films of the pre-apocalyptic view before the living dead take over, one gets a little tired because no one ever thinks to show of what happens after when the living dead do take over and I think that is one thing the audience loves to see how the human race (or what's left of it) can exist in these circumstances. It is also interesting to see how humans are creatures of survival. We have a constant need to survive, even when things look bad. Fiddler's Green was a clear example of that, and also Slack's desperation whilst she is trapped in a zombie cat and mouse gambling game. I also enjoyed seeing how the people portrayed in the film liked to make a game of the living dead, which was interesting; the happy snaps next to two zombies, bars with drinks all around, taking a positive (a really weird positive) out of a clear negative.
The plot this time was a little interesting and a bit more different. The living dead who move at 1 mile per hour are beginning to actually use their brains or what's left of them. It is the main threat to the survivors in this movie as the zombies begin to understand that hitting something very hard will either break it or hurt it.
But I have a little problem. Does every opening scene of a zombie movie have to be the same? You know you're in for a zombie movie if there are jaggered cuts of news reports of "strange beings" walking the earth and the only way to kill them is to shoot them or decapitate them and blah blah. I know it's only the opening sequence but I expected a little more direction in the opening since the opening of a film sets to scene and to see the same opening sequence over and over is just a little tiresome. Someone needs to come up with something new and flashy and awesome. Hell, maybe even just forget the survival kit news reports and maybe just get straight to the story. That might be a little suggestion. Thanks.
The last time I saw Simon Baker was in Ring Two where he had a barely-there performance. This time he was right in front of the screen almost all the time, had a lot more dialog and changed from a checkered shirt (because that means you're from out of town in cinema language) to some black coat. I love Simon Baker because he is absolutely fabulous to look at, but not much fun to watch. He is extremely bland in this film and has nothing really much to add. John Leguizamo has more of an on-screen presence or maybe it's just because he can play the "bad-ass" with more persuasion than Simon Baker can play the good guy. But even here John Leguizamo has been type-cast as a Spanish guy named
. Cholo. Are you freaking kidding me? And saying every two lines in Spanish just to prove that he is in fact Spanish? No one cares honestly. And that's not all. The main badass zombie is a big burly African-American guy? Oh the originality! While this film pleases gore lovers with lots of blood and guts for show, this film is very interesting to see as a social commentary as well. What would the world be like when one stage of our lives that being the harmonious and peaceful times of our world is over and a new age of reckoning begins? How will humans be able to survive? For one thing there is always going to be social hierarchy's which is evident in this film the rich living in the luxury skyscraper of Fiddlers Green and the poor out on the streets, banding together in order to survive. There is always going to be the conflict of "us versus them" and in this world it's those who threaten to destroy what's left of the peace that we live in in our post apocalyptic world. The rise of leaderships between those who are money hungry and self-centered and those who are strong (and burly).
While this movie has many flaws, it is still fun to enjoy and if you're willing much to ponder.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Even if you're not a Star Wars fan, you should SEE THIS FILM
I'd never seen any of the films before I saw this movie except for the older ones long ago. I made it a mission to see this film simply because it is the pivotal film in the series. I didn't even like Star Wars. In fact, even when I said "I have to see this movie" there was reluctance in my voice. But I'm glad I saw it. VERY glad.
One of the things that have surrounded this new trilogy is the amazing transition from a powerful democracy to the slow evolution to an empire and dictatorship. Democracy has ultimate paradoxes. They cannot achieve one thing without doing another that contradicts the true essence of democracy. This is evident in the final film when the Republic becomes what Palpatine envisioned. The way that events contributed to the downfall of democracy also illustrated the fall of Anakin. It almost seems as though Anakin had no choice at the very end but to fall into darkness, as did the Republic.
Hayden Christensen will most probably never be seen as the man that became Darth Vader. His anger, restlessness and fear are present but not present enough to make the audience believe he could really become this Dark Lord. This might be attributed to the fact that Anakin's conscience was constantly eating at him and although he wanted to save Padme and those he loved from dieing, he knew what following this dark path would ultimately mean. Christensen captures the tragedy that is Darth Vader quite well in this sense. It is not until the final moment in the film that you feel his sadness and despair of his character, finally forced to follow something that he knows in his heart is not right. His transition to the Dark Side may seem "fast" for viewers. And they're right. It was fast. This speedy transition was most probably done on purpose. It was not until the very, VERY end of the film that Anakin sealed his fate as Darth Vader. It seemed as though throughout the film he was confident but also reluctant to become a Sith.
Ian McDiarmid's portrayal of Supreme Chancellor Palpatine/Darth Sidious is absolutely amazing. He is excellent as the cunning senator, who from the very beginning of this second trilogy has been the manipulative voice in powerful men and women's ears. He uses all political crises to his advantage, almost to the point where the title of Emperor simply falls into his lap. Sidious is so evil that it isn't the graphic novel like evil that is Darth Vader, but truly evil. His deep cackle is haunting, his gleaming eyes and hollow face are truly a work of art. The audience sees him as the true villain in this film and all of Star Wars. He is the puppeteer of all those around him and he is absolutely fantastic.
Ewan McGregor is absolutely fantastic as Obi-Wan. He is one of the few actors that made their character credible. McGregor has shown that he's worked hard to get the likeness to Guinness down and he has done well. Natalie Portman did not contribute much to this film, simply because Padme is pregnant and she could not leave her home often. She did what she could with the lines given to her, just like every other actor.
Portman and Christensen suffered from Lucas' dialogue out of any other actors. The actors did what they could with the lines they were given. After the first assault which is almost likened to a "no you hang up".. "no you first!" dialogue between the two actors, I practically dreaded any scene with Christensen and Portman together. It doesn't mean they are bad actors. It means someone should have argued with Lucas when they read the script.
Jar Jar Binks is reduced to a non speaking role in this film, possibly because this film should be without much comical relief. R2-D2 offers the comic relief that is needed in this film with his shrill little screams and his "violent" retaliation. It is only small, but not forgettable. His moments stick out in this film because they are the only parts that make you laugh or smile, and that is not very often.
If you do end up seeing this film, bare in mind that it is a Star Wars film so you're going to be subject to the same old screen transitions, the dramatic dialogue, the artistic deaths, the comical "NO!" and a lot of other stuff. It's a fantastic ride but sad when it ends. I recommend this film to anyone and everyone. And for those who get dragged along, there's always Hayden Christensen, Ewan McGregor and Natalie Portman to serve as eye candy. Enjoy!
The Ring Two (2005)
The art and fear of grabbing
Opening scenes in "horror" films these days have been followed, almost religiously since Wes Cravens' "Scream". An opening scene in a horror film scares the audience to leave them scared the entire film. "The Ring" accomplished this. "The Ring Two" did not. Sitting there with my hands clamped together and my knuckles probably turning white, I prepared to crap my pants at the opening scene. But two minutes into the scene, I began to relax myself because to tell you the truth, a five year old wouldn't have found that scary. A five year old with a bladder problem wouldn't even have wet themselves.
This film was supposed to take place six months after the other film right? Well, super idea because Aidan obviously LOOKS older. And I don't mean six months older. I'm talking and obvious change from eight years old (when the first movie was shot) to an eleven year old (when the second movie was shot). Nice going. Give it another six months and they'll be trying to make him a nine year old. With a beard.
Simon Baker. Ah, Simon Baker. Watching Guardian so many times got me hooked on this man. So I was relieved to see him in this film. However, two-dimensional characters with less than 20 words in a film don't get me that excited. As much as Simon Baker is a good actor, he was wasted in this film. He wasn't even developed into a love interest or anything remotely interesting for the audience. He was just ... there. And you always know that you are outside of a major city when people are wearing checked shirts. Baker used these to the extreme. Very cosmopolitan.
Let us move on to the faces of the dead, which look a lot like my face when I realize I have an assignment due tomorrow. You know, all scrunched up with my tongue sticking out and veins all over my face. A small group of people in the theater erupted into laughter when seeing the faces of those who had been killed by Samara. And you had to laugh. They were nothing compared to the first movie, which struck fear in our hearts matched with piercing music.
I also found there was a lot of grabbing in this movie. Samara grabbing Rachel in the ambulance, Samara grabbing Aidan in the bathtub, Samara grabbing Rachel through the T.V, Samara grabbing Aidan through the T.V, Samara grabbing Rachel in the Hospital... I had no idea that grabbing people was the new scare tactic. And let me tell you, if you go into this film with an intense fear of grabbing, you shouldn't see The Ring Two. You might suffer a severe heart attack.
Sissy Spacek. What a relief to see her name in the opening credits. What a displacement of that relief when we see her character playing a crazy ass woman with frizzy hair in her face, stuttering and saying things that do not make sense. I have always been captivated by her Michael Jackson-like nose and that nose kept me entertained for that entire scene.
This movie was highly predictable. By this time, my ass is hurting and I wish I had my watch on so I could see how long I had to sit through this "fear fest". The story wasn't too bad. The acting wasn't too bad. The script did no justice to The Ring films. But if you want to see a movie that will make you jump up just a little, then go for it and enjoy it for what it is. A movie assaulting checked shirts and screwed up faces.
Troy (2004)
Troy was one of the most devastating battles fought in history.
Troy is an interesting movie because it focuses on the battle of Troy, rather than the emotional story behind it. One would most likely opt to represent the emotional story but then, one would opt for the epic motion picture as well.
And so the makers of this movie have chosen to go down that path of making this a huge movie. And in concentrating the majority of the movie on the war, rather than the emotion has caused this movie to lag.
I'm not saying this movie is bad. I recommend it to those people who are interested in Ancient Greek History... or seeing Brad Pitt, Eric Bana, Orlando Bloom and Sean Bean in a skirt. It's great for entertainment, but the audience gets no satisfaction out of it and wonder what went wrong and why it feels like something was missing in the film.
One thing that failed in this movie was the chemistry between Helen (Diane Kruger) and Paris (Orlando Bloom). The actors were unable to persuade the audience to sympathies with them because their relationship was not emphasised enough. I do not blame the actors for this. It wasn't their fault. There is only so much two actors can cram into not even 20 minutes of screen time together.
Aside from Hector and Achilles, the story did not build up enough character for the audience to fully empathise with the other characters. Diane Kruger is beautiful, I'll give her that. And I felt sorry for Helen when she was crying to Hector because she felt it was her fault that this war started. But other than that, her character failed.
And it is not entirely her fault. The movie was unforgiving to the rest of the characters because it chose to show the battles other than the emotion of the story. Diane Kruger did the best she could in the small amount of time she had to represent a portrayal of Helen of Argos/Sparta/Troy
Did anyone else think that the beginning of this movie went awfully fast? It was almost like the direction of the film said "Stuff the emotion, we want the battle!".
I agree with the fact that Troy is said to be one of the most devastating battles fought in the history of the world but is it worth sacrificing the emotional story for it?
As for the story telling, it confuses audiences. Achilles (Brad Pitt) is not someone you would admire for being a hero. He is a legend and a hero to some extent. But he did not fight for anyone. He only fought for his own glory. The audience is following the story on the side of Achilles (or the rest of the mainland Greeks) Which the audience finds troubling. Because the audience usually sees the side of the story on a "good vs evil" side or a "hero vs villain" side. Achilles was not a villain but the audience feels he is when he kills Hector and drags his body back to the camp. And of course, the film makers try to get the audience to empathise with Achilles when he cries over Hector's body.
On the other hand, before Hector dies, he is the hero. He's the noble one to the audience. He fights for Troy. He sacrifices himself for Troy. And the audience finds that admirable. He is the "Good" in this story. But us, as the audience, are seeing the story on the side of Achilles. It is slightly frustrating in this way because the audience wants to follow Hector who is the other protagonist in this story.
I also want to mention the performance of Sean Bean (Odysseus) who is best known for his role as Boromir in the Lord of the Rings. If Sean Bean got more lines or more screen time, it would have been excellent. For someone who is so underrated as Sean Bean and for someone who got not nearly enough the screen time he deserved, he did a fantastic job.
If the movie balanced the emotion with the battles, it would have been fantastic. It is still a good, watchable movie if you have nothing to do one Saturday arvo, highly recommended.
Red Hot Chili Peppers: Live at Slane Castle (2003)
a fantastic performance captured on video
Red Hot Chili Peppers played in front of 80,000 people at Slane Castle on the 23rd of August 2003. They gave their heart and souls into that performance and it really shows on the dvd presentation of the event. Not only should the Chili Peppers be credited with the fact that their performance was fantastic, the camera work was great too - compared to their previous dvd 'Off the map' which show cased some shoddy camera work.
Performing 18 songs including "around the world", "scar tissue", "venice queen" and going back to the favourites "give it away", the classic "under the bridge" and also "power of equality", this dvd is recommended to anyone who is a chili peppers fan or a new fan, or even someone who has never been to a Chili Peppers' concert, this will show viewers what the Peppers are made of.
Anthony Kiedis, Flea and Chad Smith have more energy than any other 41 year old performers and John Frusciante plays his guitar with such passion that cannot be matched with other current guitarists. This video is worth your time and money.